Procrastination

Brian sent me an email about this. Like you, I tend to be skeptical of the motives of a lot of people involved in this type of analysis.

The examples I’ve seen often seem to look at a single verse or passage in isolation rather than considering it in the context of other verses on the same topic and seeing if the new interpretation makes sense in the larger context.

Also, there has been a very wide range of analysis and commentary made over the centuries, not all of which is well-known. I would like to see Muslims exploring these interpretations before assuming that a brand-new interpretation is needed.

What I want to know is how far the variants agree with those in the “codex” (i.e. textual tradition) ascribed to ibn Mas’ud.

Arthur Jeffrey pointed out a number of these, of which I find two of interest: a 47:15 with the plus “khalidina fiha abadan” (as per sura 4); and an entirely different 3:39, which replaced the reference to Zachariah standing in Mary’s doorway with an appearance of the Archangel Gabriel (as per Luke and maybe sura 19).

If you go to link, you will find that they do not print a first-century copy of sura 47; and their sura 3 extends from 3:45-55. I suspect some selectivity is going on here.

dear Imam,
Please i want to learn more about Islam so I want a Quran with a translition and some books to learn more about Islam so please help me to learn more about Islam

just one link would be enough to refute this stupid ‘texual inconsistency’ crap

Buy that book, read it and it will all be clear as to how Orientals are just trying so hard to deny its authenticity.

I have been reading on the sanaa manuscripts for a few months as I was interested to learn about them after hearing from my Christian friends about them.

Gerhard Puin wrote a letter shortly after the publication of the Atlantin Monthly article to the President of antiquity of Yemen. Puin denies all the claims made within the Atlantic Monthly article and said that the Quran in the sanaa manuscripts is the same as the one in our possession today. The differences being different spelling conventions…for instance, the way “alif” is written. Moreover, these differing spelling conventions are not unique to the sanaa manuscripts.

Second, the different surah order. There is apparently one fragment in the sanaa manuscripts in which we come across a different surah placement. I think some individuals, mainly Christian polemicists, have made a lot of noise on this matter without knowing the basics.

To explain briefly, Muslims, I am told, can recite the surahs of the Quran in any order. You can start from any point and stop at any point. There is no mechanical following of the surah order. Similarly, you can transcribe surahs in any order you desire. This is an old practise among the Muslims, so they are quite confused and perplexed when they come across some westerner talking cheerfully about the different surah order in one of the fragment. The Muslim goes: huh, so?

A Muslim friend of mine showed me a small copy of selected surahs of the Quran, some hundred or ninty pages. The surahs and verses were placed in a different order when I compared it to a complete translation of the Quran. This is a normal practise among Muslims.

But, if you desire to produce a complete copy of the Quran, containing all the 114 or 113 surahs, then you have to follow the Uthmanian order, since that order was established by people who learnt from Muhammed. However, you can recite the surahs in any order, place them on a paper in any order, place verses in any order, and even, for scholarly purposes, produce Qurans in different surah orders. For example, I have read somewhere Muslim scholars of old producing copies of the Quran in the chronological order of “revelation”.

Therefore, differing surah order is not looked upon as a “problem” by Muslims and they do not find it “shocking”. I think people who do not know much about Muslim beleifs and practises are primarily the ones who make a lot of noise over these issues and fool themselves into thinking that they have finally uncovered something to “refute” the Quran and shatter Muslim beliefs.

Regarding variant readings, I was surprised to learn from my Muslim friends that Muslims still recite and read the Quran in variant readings. These are know as “qirat”. “variant reading”, to begin with, is the wrong term. The correct term is “multiple readings” - which are all deemed authoritative if they meet some conditions. basically, if a reading is shown to be preserved in a manuscript, its transmission is unbroken to Muhammed, then it is accepted as the Quran and added to the list of existing multiple readings, or qirats. So if scholars locate any reading in the sanaa manuscripts, which are shown to be authentic, then they will be added to the existing list of readings by the Muslims.

Another thing which I have learnt is that the sanaa manuscripts, do not, in fact, reveal any different or new readings. The only variance we find within them is the differing orthographical style, or spelling convention of some letters, and different surah order in on fragment. Nothing more than this as far as I can tell.

Also, if we look at Muslim scholarship, it is surprising to learn how critical it really is. A Muslim scholar called al-Nadim (I think I have the name incorrect), produced a book, called the “Fihrist” in which he listed the variations between certain manuscripts of the Quran in his time. No death threats were issued against him. Similarly, later and earlier Muslim scholars frequently sought out various manuscripts, compared them, and noted the differences in numerous scholarly books. This is not something new to Muslims. So, it is entirely false and misleading to suggest that Muslims, who are basically idiots who know nothing and get scared too quick, did no textual criticism and denied variant, or multiple readings. These are the types of topics openly and freely discussed among Muslims for centuries and centuries. It is not a “controversial” subject in Islamic studies.

Finally, there is an important and crucial difference between the transmission of the Quran and the New Testament. New testament has been transmitted mainly through manuscripts. Scribes make copies of the New Testament, make more copies, and copies of copies, hence, in the process making a variant of errors which eventually multiply as more copies continue to be propagated. Therefore, a writing transmitted only textually can get easily corrupted.

The Quran, on the other hand, has been transmitted oraly as well as in written form. It has always had a parallel oral and written transmission. The benefits of this procedure are obvious - the written transmission keeps a check on the oral transmission and the oral transmission keeps a check on the written transmission. This allows for static transmission. As a result, scribal errors do not propagate as manuscripts are recopied since they are identified and isolated as a result of the parallel oral transmission. Similarly, the oral transmission cannot diverge since there exists a parallel written transmission. The oral transmission is not just a mere telling and retelling of stories, it is a verbatim memorisation of the text.

So I am not presently convinced with the arguments of the polemicists against the textual integrity of the Quran. I am not a Muslim, but I am planning on becoming one someday, I am not certain. While I am not convinced yet that the Quran is the word of God, I do accept it as the word of Muhammed. There would be no reason for me to deny its textual integrity even if I was an athiest.

Thanks

Johnny.

Also, about Arthur Jeffery, one thing to remember is that the variant readings which he produces are not derived from manuscripts. Basicaly, he says that so and so read this. Where is the evidence? Therefore, he presents gossip.

It is also interesting to note the he himself castes doubt over the authenticity of his readings. But decides to conviniently include the since they suit his presuppositions.

Moreover, Jeffery concedes that the so-called codex of Ibn Masud and others (“so called” because there are no codics) display the same text type as the present Quran and do not display any divergences which would lead to a dramatic revision or alteration of the Quran. I think you have quotes of his book on the islamic-awareness website.

Have you heard about Luxenberg, a scholar who suspects Quranic text was misunderstood since the beginning, for it was written in a mixed arabic/aramaic language … ??